Tuesday, 20 May 2014

As the 5th round of negotiations on the US/EU
free trade agreement kicks off in the US, 250 organisations, including from the
UK, have today sent a joint letter to EU Trade Commissioner, Karel de Gucht,
demanding transparency in this massive but secretive deal.

The letter, signed by a broad range of consumer, union,
environment and other organisations calls for negotiating texts for the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to be released to the
public, as well as information on ‘who
is lobbying who’ in relation to the deal.

Although there is some talk of the Commission releasing its
negotiating mandate (which was leaked a year ago), the actual offers being made on behalf of 850 million people
are still secret, with the intention to keep the negotiating texts secret until
TTIP negotiations are complete.

The main thrust of TTIP is ‘harmonising’ the regulations of
the US and the EU – across all areas. There are big differences between the EU
and US in health and safety regulatory protection. Thus civil society groups
are concerned that standards e.g. on food and chemical safety, data protection
and public service models, will be degraded -with this happening behind closed doors.

‘It’s absolutely unacceptable that key TTIP
documents are not only being kept from the public, but that MPs are not
allowed to know what is going forward in this supposed ‘trade’ deal either.
This joint statement shows the breadth of resistance to thissecrecy’
according to Linda Kaucher of StopTTIP uk.

This deal will allow corporations to sue governmentsfor varying regulations after
commitments are made and signed up. Yet the commitments being made are being
kept secret.

The organisations are therefore calling for step-by-step
release of the negotiating texts, in all chapters of the agreement, and also of
records of the lobbying meetings that have taken place for this
corporate-agenda deal. Their
letter references EU commitments to ‘right-to-know’ and to promoting public
participation in the Aarhus Convention.

Civil society call for full transparency about the EU-US trade negotiations

Dear
Commissioner De Gucht,

The
undersigned organisations are writing to express deep concerns about the lack
of transparency around the ongoing trade talks on a Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP). We are calling on you to open the negotiation
process to the public, by releasing the negotiating mandate, documents
submitted by the EU, and negotiating texts.

The
European Commission has repeatedly stated that trade and investment between the
European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are already highly integrated,
and that the main focus of TTIP will be to achieve regulatory convergence by
removing so-called non-tariff barriers to trade. This means that the outcome
has much less to do with traditional trade issues such as tariffs, than with
the regulations and standards that apply in the EU and the US and that affect
every single aspect of citizens’ daily lives – from the quality of the food we
eat to the safety of chemicals we use, the energy we consume, or the impact of financial
services on each of us.

Civil
society groups in the EU and in the US have voiced concerns that this might
lower standards and remove safeguards across the board. They have requested
greater transparency about the negotiations to address these concerns. The
setting up of a stakeholder advisory group for the negotiations by the EU –
although an improvement compared to previous negotiations – is far from
sufficient to make the process fully transparent. Members of the group will
have limited access to the negotiating texts under strict confidentiality
rules, and these will remain out of reach for the rest of interested civil
society groups and citizens.

The
European Commission has argued that secrecy in this process is inevitable
because this is a matter of international relations. If these negotiations are
intended to affect domestic regulations, standards and safeguards on each side,
then citizens have the right to know what is being put on the table, and how
this is being negotiated. The standard legislative process in the EU allows for
public scrutiny of each step of policy-making as well as full involvement of
the European Parliament.

We would urge that those negotiations should comply with the same level of
openness. The process should also allow for public accountability of the European
Commission for the negotiating positions that it takes. Given that many of the
issues under negotiation relate to the environment, this would also reflect the
EU’s obligations under Article 3(7) of the Aarhus Convention to promote access
to information, public participation and access to justice in international
environmental decision-making processes1.

Furthermore there are several examples of international
negotiation processes, which provide a greater degree of openness to civil
society than the negotiations on TTIP do, and whereby negotiating documents are
disclosed.

Examples include:

- The World Trade
Organisation (WTO): Even the WTO, which is regularly the subject of criticisms
by civil society and member states, makes submissions made by member states in
the negotiations, as well as offers, and reports by committee chairs available
on its website2.

- The United Nations Framework for Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):
The negotiating texts and submissions from the parties are circulated before
the negotiations start. Observers, including external stakeholders, attend the
sessions, and can provide submissions on request by the parties3.

- The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO): Draft negotiating
documents are being released all along the process. Meetings are open to the
public, and webcasted4.

- The Aarhus Convention: Meetings of the governing body and its
subsidiary bodies are as a rule public. Accredited observers can participate in
meetings of parties and in drafting groups working in collaboration with
parties to develop text during the negotiations. They have the same speaking rights
as parties5.

With this letter, we would like to restate our call for
openness and public accountability of the TTIP negotiations. Without full
transparency, there can be no meaningful engagement of civil society
representatives in the process.

Basic transparency requirements include making the following available for the
public at the earliest possible stage and at regular intervals:

- The text of the EU’s negotiating mandate;

- The initial position papers tabled by the EU;

- Any further papers submitted by the EU in the
course of the negotiations that detail or explain the position of the EU on the
topic, and that are being used in the course of the negotiations with the other
party;

- The draft versions and final versions of individual
chapters as well as the whole agreement at all steps of preparation and
evolution (and at least before closing the negotiations and initialling so that
parliaments and the public can still assess the outcome and make comments and
recommendations).

If the European Commission is serious about openness and
engagement of the public, it should also proactively make the following
available:

- All written communications between the European Commission
and other European institutional bodies (European Parliament and Member States)
on this issue;

5 Aarhus Convention Task Force on
Public Participation in International Forums, Innovations in Public
Participation in International Forums – Advanced Draft, 23 February 2011, (“Innovations
draft”), available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ppif/6meeting/Innovations in
public participation in international forums - draft for consideration by PPIF
Task Force v.1 .do

All agendas and minutes of meetings between the European Commission and the
European Parliament and Member States on this issue;

- All written communications between the European Commission and
third parties –including industry and lobby organisations – on this issue;

-
All agendas and minutes of meetings between the European Commission and third
parties – including industry and lobby organisations – on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Magda Stoczkiewicz

Director, Friends of
the Earth Europe

Contact: Paul de
Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe

paul@milieudfensie.nl ; +32-494-380-959

On behalf of:

Signatories: Co-initiators

11.11.11

AccessInfo Europe

ArbeiterKammer Europa (AK Europa)

Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation
(ALTER-EU)

ATTAC European Network

Campagna Stop TTIP Italia

ClientEarth

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)

European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)

European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI)

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)

Finance Watch

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)

Greenpeace

Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)

LobbyControl

Powershift

Re:Common

Seattle to Brussels

SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations)

Spinwatch

Transnational Institute (TNI)

Transparency International EU (TI-EU)

Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue

Transport and Environment (T&E)

Network (AEFJN)

Afrika Kontakt

Aitec-IPAM

Alternative Informatics Turkey

An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland

Article 19

Asamblea Las Rozas

Asociación Qué hacen

Attac Austria

Attac Germany

Attac Nuernberg

Attac Paderborn

ATTAC Portugal

ATTAC SPAIN

Berlin Water Council

Berlin Water Table

BI Fracking freies Hessen

BI lebenswertes Korbach e.V.

Both ENDS’

Breadboard

BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.

Buy Responsibly Foundation

CADTM - Committee for Abolition of the
Third World Debt

Campaign for Real Farming

Central America Women's Network

Central America Women's Network (CAWN)

Centre for Sustainable Development

Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska

Change Partnership

Chaos Computer Club

Climate Alliance

RED CIMAS

Civil Euro Perspective

CNCD-11.11.11

Collectif Roosevelt

Commons Network

Compass

Compassion in World Farming

Danish Ecological Council

Danish Society for a Living Sea

Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR) - German
League for Nature and Environment

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

“Please supply your
evidence that the individuals named below have furthered their own interests.
Please supply as much detail as you have. Thank you, Liz Barker”

The
Liberal Democrat peer, Baroness Barker wrote
these words after she and all her fellow peers had received a list
of parliamentarians and their financial links to companies and individuals
involved in healthcare.

The list of over 200 parliamentarians had proved annoying to the Baroness,
especially because at the time, they were all debating, amending and voting on
the bill to help it become an Act.

One month after the legislation gained Royal Ascent, the Baroness incorporated a consultancy company, which she
co-owns and that works with the third sector to assist in their quest for NHS
contracts.

The company, Barker & Woodward Consultancy Limited offers advice to
third sector organisations through a two-day course called the “the right prescription”.
This service offers
information on how ‘third sector organisations can constructively work for the
NHS’ and advice about ‘competitors
and development of strategic partnerships.’

The “right prescription” can cost up to £400, which fits into Ms Barker’s personal request
that we supply ‘as much detail’ that we have that ‘individuals’ have ‘furthered
their own interests’.

Baroness Barker was the Spokesperson on Health for the Liberal Democrats up until 2010 and has since
remained a member of their Health and Social Care Team. She herself debated,
made multiple key amendments and voted on the Health and Social Care bill, helping
it become an Act.
One of the amendments drafted by Ms Barker during the Health bill progress, was
in the area of conflicts of interests. It read"CCGs must make arrangements for managing
conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that
they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the group's
decision-making processes". She concluded “It is extremely important that
these groups not only set out to uphold the highest standards but that they are
seen to uphold them.”
The ability to see into the future is a skill all good entrepreneurs’ must
have, but perhaps when you are producing the legislation, it is easier to know
what lies ahead. One month after today’s Care bill hearing, Ms Barker’s company
is offering a briefing on its content in exchange for money
to the third sector.

The third sector is playing a key role in
the dismantling of the NHS, acting as a Trojan horse to allow private
healthcare companies to come in and take over the running of services. They lobbied
alongside private health for Jeremy Hunt to not water down privatisation
regulations, they lied when they said they were neutral
over the outcome of the Health bill, and their Chief Executive acted as a handy
inside
man at a critical moment in the health bill’s progress. The reward for the
third sector has been 70% of all NHS contracts awarded since the implementation
of the Health Act, have gone to private firms.

The Code of conduct that all Members sign up to
states that ‘Holders of public office should take
decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in
order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their
family, or their friends.’

The loop-hole that allows Members of both Houses to vote on legislation when
they have a financial interest is ridiculous. Now Ms Barker is about to vote on
the Care bill, helping it to become an Act and then one month later gain
revenue from imparting that information.

Local councillors must abide by a stricter
regime, which is imposed on them by parliament. If they have a financial or
non-financial interest, then they must
neither ‘participate in any discussion of the matter at the meeting’ nor ‘participate
in any vote, or further vote.’

Currently the
government has no intention to reform the rules that govern their own working
life. In response to a petition placed on the No10 website that demanded ‘No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate
on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in
which they have a financial interest’, they replied that it would “not be
practical” to introduce any curbs to such behaviour because a “significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have
beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations.”

Exactly!

See the latest list of parliamentary recent
or present financial interests to healthcare here.